Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 36. (Read 9233 times)

probably!  for example: can someone explain to me why they would  pay 1btc for images like this one? i https://ordswap.io/inscription/cb3894a721ea7852e0c075ecbeaf23c107c2336e7eb849ebae7c8138228583b6i0

just trying to understand if there's something i'm missing. i understand sellers can set their asking price whatever they want but why would someone pay $20,000 for a simple image like that? obviously, this person thinks just because it has a low inscriptiion number he can charge people 1btc for a piece of junk.

I started a new 1 sat/b actual Bitcoin transaction yesterday. Lets see how many days the current spam wave will make me wait... Remember, it used to be 2~12 hours before Ordinals and friends invaded.

these silly memes being "sold" for hundreds of thousands. are not actually sold to new recipients
its the maker selling to himself, to set a spot price. but at no cost becasue funds move from and back to the same person

this then fakes a price. to make people think they are worth a high amount

this same game was played on ebay with UK 50pence pieces being sold by.. the buyer being the seller, offering themself a price of £5-£50 just to set fake prices and get some media attention making people think 50pence pieces were worth £50

..
as for ordinals. they are not NFT. by any strength of peg/representation

The beginning of NFTs on Bitcoin actually goes all the way back to the first 1 of 1 token on Counterparty, which is OLGA, issued on Jun 12, 2014. A cool thing about OLGA is its artwork is actually stored on-chain, though it wasn't added until a bit more than a year later. This is the transaction that uploaded the artwork (it is Counterparty-encoded):

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/627ae48d6b4cffb2ea734be1016dedef4cee3f8ffefaea5602dd58c696de6b74

Then it was followed by several other proto-NFT projects on Counterparty, including NILIcoins, Spells of Genesis, and most famously, Rare Pepes. These of course aren't technically NFTs by the strictest definition as they are 1 of manys, rendering them rather fungible. There's a few Rare Pepes that are 1 of 1s, like HOMERPEPE, which sold at auction for $320k in Mar 2021.


Assuredly.

And yet, it's the most powerful backwards-compatible, censorship-resistant monetary network on the planet. On the other hand, what you're proposing is to increase the block size limit, as there hasn't been a long discussion about this already, make blockchain work less efficiently, and break backwards compatibility. My question is: why aren't you on Bitcoin Cash already?

I do not quite understand how trading NFTs will work in ordinals. How is trading possible in ordswap.io if there are no references to the artwork or the data? You appear to be telling everyone that people might lose their NFTs, however, trading has begun without complaints from the people.

https://ordswap.io/

In any case, there are many bitcoiners in social media that say NFTs in bitcoin are dead but it might only be the beginning, I reckon. We cannot be certain where this will stop. It can be argued that it might bring more adoption on bitcoin.

there are ways to lock value and represent said value to be spent in alternative systems. however the current methods of certain systems are prime for abuse and dont actually represent/link/peg to said main value very well on the alternative system side
..
there will be some subnetwork systems in the future, but the current ones being promoted the most, wont be it. it is too flawed to be of general use, let alone used for a niche, as the representations/peg/lock is weak on the subnetwork side
..
there will be NFT on bitcoin eventually (via file hash representation that moves with the spender.. not vaulted whole file library with no latter representation in child tx), but the ones being currently promoted as ordinals are not NFT, its too flawed to be actually tradable onchain. as the representations/peg/lock is non-existent on the child utxo side

i don't want to send my money on some level 2 network. if i'm doing that, i might as well be using an altcoin not bitcoin right? because level 2 = bad.

Glassnode published an interesting research on the impact of ordinals in the base layer.

It was published a few days ago, butt seems it wasn't reported here, but I think there are many interesting insight on the phenomenon:

Ordinal Theory and the Rise of Bitcoin Inscriptions


Maybe the (first) climax has already passed, but it's plenty of interesting analysis.

really
then how come the narrative is "lets not do onchain scaling and instead do subnetwork offramping"
and the whole "be patient onchain scaling will eventually happen when subnetworks hit critical liquidity issues to need more onchain scaling"

yep onchain tx scaling has not occured for 7 years because the direction of the core roadmap is to do subnetworks instead
thus yes subnetworks are a slowdown of onchain scaling

seriously
stop the echo chamber of a small central group. and think about bitcoin (the bitcoin network) as a whole for everyone..
you wanting people to move to other networks is about a small group wanting to get paid to be middlemen(routers)

they want bitcoin to remain limited and costly as it pushes people away from bitcoin

even your quote of the book you mentioned a couple posts ago is telling you this should you read it properly

..
here ill reveal the next phase of the game
once subnetworks are populated they want to then have mechanisms where fee's are collected into a central middleman to then be sent to pools via private contracts outside of the bitcoin network. so that the pools get paid to continue hashing. but without needing people to settle onchain to pay pools via fee's due to more games of making it too expensive to use onchain transactions and keep people locked into subnetworks for YEARS

this "off chain" payments to pools means the users of subnetworks end up paying more routing fee's to fund pools offchain. but where the bitcoin network onchain transactions are made to be even super higher to keep that financial incentive being deemed "cheaper offchain" even though the offchain costs will rise

the whole ploy is not to have a cheap functional decentralised payment network. but a middleman payment network with an expensive to use vault/reserve value network
which only the elitists can afford to use becasue they are only moving large amounts

---

they(the centralist idols you love/follow) do not want a decentralised bitcoin network for the unbanked without middlemen.. they want the opposite.
yep blockstream and its subsidiaries(chain code labs and brinks) have received hundreds of millions of investment from institutional investors and those investments need to generate returns
the sponsored devs interests are not about "the community/bitcoin ethos" its now their duty to make returns for their investors meaning breaking the bitcoin ethos to fit whatever system can help give back institutions their investments

The "game" is to make Bitcoin a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. The second layer solutions don't exist to slow down the adoption, as you and your conspiracy friends believe, pretty much the opposite. Small blocks are a pain in the ass on-chain, I agree, but large blocks don't form a network that lasts. It is not a solution, because it doesn't hold sufficiency in the long term. Here's another quote if you can't comprehend it yet:

I don't say we shouldn't rise the block size limit. As I've said I'm in favor of it. I'm just saying two things: first of all, backwards compatibility isn't an easy-peasy part to go unnoticed, and second, larger blocks don't solve the scaling problem; they improve scaling on the short term, but it stills remains a problem.

nice quote.. have you understood it

rather than PEOPLE that want more transactions
small central group controlling the devs decided they wanted small blocks because of financial conflict of interest

yep blockstream got paid HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. it was not a donation. it was an investment by bankers that want secondary subnetworks that use middlemen getting commission.. yep they want returns on their investments

so yea they dont like bitcoin being a p2p payment system because they cant make money from p2p payments

one script/game they tried was saying "more transactions=big blocks=more costs for nodes = nodes need to be paid" that idea didnt get much traction and died quick

.. the game is currently happening is to ruin bitcoins p2p proposition and try to make people think they need to pay more on bitcoin or pay a middle man on alternative networks

and you are falling into that same narrative

where as ..
bitcoin can have more transaction so individuals pay less individually*
bitcoin can have better fee mechanisms so individuals pay less individually
*bitcoin can have leaner transactions so individuals pay less

.. but you are falling into the trap scripts of "pay more onchain" have less tx onchain.
basically the game of everyone suffers unless they move to other networks

The one which doesn't break backwards compatibility.

Dude, what are you smoking?

I have made my research, and Blockstream developers (who were back then Bitcoin Core developers) support small blocks years now, long before second layer solutions come along. I'll quote you a noteworthy part from the book "The Blocksize War", which I suggest you buy and read yourself by the way:

by limiting onchain transaction growth. when the total fee's become more important to mining pools it then causes people to pay more

with transactions count growth onchain there are more transactors. meaning individuals pay less because .. math

if pools need say 0.13000000btc right now as their bonus of 6.25:0.13 reward:fee(income:bonus)
which way should it be:

2000 transactors paying 6500 sat each (10 sat/byte of average 650byte) =0.13
or
4000 transactors paying 3250 sat each (5 sat/byte of average 650byte) =0.13

you and your madhatter family/relationships(you and doomads buddies) prefer less than 2000 average transactions per block where 1 person pays for say 0.3mb at 10sat/byte for the inputs/ooutputs. then 2.5sat/byte for the 300kb of bloat/meme and then 1700 other people pay more then 10 sat per byte for real tx data to try to 'outbid' each other to try to get into the remaining area of a block limit

..
oh and if you actually research. the main core developers that done these changes are blockstream sponsored. which blockstream were consulting with the hyperledger group (the institutional bankers of CBDC prototypes)
so no its not "mastercard" but nice try spinning that stupid idea.
its the other bankers that are using bitcoin as the sandbox experiment for limiting bitcoin utility as just a reserve asset vaults/swap and using second layers as the payment system
yep idea's inspired by hyperledger way back in 2015

you really should try to look at stuff and not just take doomads narrative. he is not helping you learn at all

even your use of the term "big blockers" is not something of a descriptor you have thought up yourself. you are just following a narrative shown to you by idiots that dont understand the big picture

I've noticed this excuse lately from big blockers. Is this really all you have? In my local board, someone argued that the Bitcoin developers don't want scaling, because they're cooperating with politicians, so they can slow down adoption, with second-layer solutions being an obstacle to it. He even argued that due to Mastercard funding the development, it is behind this conspiracy. You sound like him now.

In which galaxy do we want Bitcoin to be more expensive and unusable as a peer-to-peer network? Grow up for once and use arguments adults use.

funny part is without a better fee mechanism(you love bitcoin not having one and are fighting against anyone suggesting to implement one).. guess what..  without a fee mechanism.. everyone pays more thus makes it a socialist coin as you describe
yep core control that legacy pays more then segwit but everyone has to pay more based on a fee estimation code..

with a fee mechanism that individualises fee's. only the spammers/bloaters pay more and not everyone. and other people pay a respectable fee based on individual utility of bloat/time between spends
yep respending reciprocal utxos with low age confirms should only be higher fee rate to the spammer utilising blocks more then others.. not a system where everyone has to pay more due to the actions of a few

you want the socialist coin where a bloater causes everyone harm by everyone paying more

---

healthcare analogy:
there are 1999 people in good health that dont see a doctor weekly
there is 1 person who is fat, diabetic(bloated) who sees the doctor weekly

which system do you want
everyones national insurance to increase to cover doctors costs
respectable fees based on how often individuals see the doctor and how bloated they are

seems today you have tried to pull the socialist straw but not realised it

yet again you have pretended to be against one thing but actual idealise it and want to fight off anyone that is against your ideals

Firstly, what I want or don't want is irrelevant.  It's what the collective will of the entire network wants.

But if I did have a personal preference, it's for nodes to decide for themselves how much burden they are prepared to carry.  Which is what they are currently doing.  How many more times do I need to repeat it?  



Again, what I want or don't want is irrelevant.  It's what the collective will of the entire network wants.

But if I had a preference, I wouldn't want a system where you decide what people should or shouldn't pay.  People are free to decide that for themselves.  Go create SocialistCoin if you want centrally planned fees.

how does someone know if a particular transaction is an ordinals transaction. that seems like an impossible thing to determine. say i'm buying someone else's already minted nft. how are you going to know?

that's what you wish maybe but that's not what's happening. they are putting text nfts for data storage purposes and they aren't paying much.


there's so many of them like that though it seems like someone is trying to run some type of domain name registry on bitcoin.  

you cant remember your own words.. hmm??
you loved all the network changes that were made without mass node consent(consensus)
you love changes that are slid in without consultation of the masses
you love how fee's have been manipulated

YOU are the one obsessed with saying everyone should pay more

in recent years you have said limit the blocksize to push the fee market
now you are saying allow bloat in a limited block size to push the fee market

your the one talking about fee market incentives, bidding

you dont want more tx per block to allow lower fee's..
you dont want fee mechanisms that allow genuine users to pay less and only the spammers pay more.
heck you even loved how legacy transactions were treated as 4x the fee of segwit.

you want standard/legacy p2p payments (the way things used to be) to be made super expensive and you love how gateways to recruiting people towards using your favoured flaws subnetwork of middlemen taking commissions(routing)

all you care about is ways to make bitcoin expensive and impractical to use as a p2p network so you can scam, scheme, and and syphon value away from people for your own buddy groups gain.

you shout 'freedom' where what you really mean is a fee kingdom for everyone else and freedom for you
(a freedom that works in YOUR favour even at a cost to other people)
i know you are not a full node and you love to prune meaning you dont care about bitcoin network security as long as you can get your subnetwork channel to be open to new recruits using you as a middleman.

but atleast try to once in a while take a step back from your personal greed. and think of the ecosystem security as a whole for other users

I'd call that 'supply & demand' rather than 'censorship', but otherwise, yes.  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  There are cheaper blockchains to spam, so this current attention we're getting from the novelty-picture-brigade hopefully won't last long.  If I'm wrong and they keep spamming the BTC chain, then it's up to the collective network as a whole to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about it.  But I'd rather see a productive conversation about it, rather than a witch-hunt.    

---

I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees.  That's just more dishonesty on your part.  Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other.  Fee bidding has always been organic.  As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation.  Your case remains unconvincing.  Come up with better arguments.

One could also argue that those who can only think as far as copying what unsuccessful altcoins have done; Those who would mimic the cheap, faltering, dismal clones of Bitcoin; Those who would willingly sacrifice what makes Bitcoin stand out from the sea of unremarkable shite out there, they would be the one who doesn't care about Bitcoin.  That's you, by the way.  Maybe come up with something more original than "let's do the same thing worthless altcoins did and sacrifice decentralisation for throughput, even though it completely defeats the whole point of having a decentralised network in the first place" and people might start taking you seriously.  One-trick-pony, much?

And for the record, I'm not completely opposed to increases to the size of blocks.  I just happen to believe it will only occur when those supporting the network are prepared to bear the cost of such increases.  And I'm yet to see any evidence to counter that belief.  Individual zealots perched atop their soapboxes, preaching their hate-filled dogma to the crowd, have remarkably little say in the matter.  The network is naturally resistant to such noise.  Sorry, but you don't get to demand that other people pay the cost for everything.  If you want to use the valuable resource others are providing you with, you pay for it.  Nowhere is it said that someone not only has to provide you with a service and also pay for it themselves, just so you can be a parasitic leech and get something for nothing.  But everything you describe in your fantasy-fascist-fuckwit-franky wishlist sounds like you just want free shit handed to you.


  

---

I certainly feel that 'incentive versus disincentive' is a much healthier line of discussion than 'Orwellian crackdowns on freedom', so I'm intrigued where this goes.  Please continue.